[Spellyans] iw

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Sat Nov 20 12:47:39 GMT 2010


Nicholas, you say “There is no difference between <iw> and <yw> and thus there is no need to spell them differently,” but you also say that <iw> doesn’t occur in the texts, so how can there not be a difference between them when <iw> doesn’t occur? 

 

Here are some more questions I would like to hear your answer to, because I have difficulty understanding exactly what you mean when you talk about the lack of distinctiveness in <iw> : <yw>:

Are you talking about sounds, sounds at a certain period or graphs? 

Do you think that lyw-words and bew-word remained separate until the death of traditional Cornish? 

Would you need to show orthographically the (former) distinction of bew-words and tew-words?

If this is so, how would you suggest to keep separate the lyw-words from the separated bew- and tew-words?

Thanks, 

Dan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: nicholas williams
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 11:22 AM



“Dyw and dew are not kept separate in the texts for the most part. In order, however, to be closer to UC we write dyw with feminine nouns. Although I always write dewla 'hands'.

There is no difference between <iw> and <yw> and thus there is no need to spell them differently.

Nicholas.

 

On 2010 Du 20, at 07:53, A. J. Trim wrote:

> I thought that you were recommending <dew> "two" for both masculine and feminine. Has that changed?

> 

> I don't regard the difference as significant but some people believe that there is a real difference between <iw> and <yw>. Perhaps we should recommend that they write their supposed difference as <yu> and <yw> instead.

> 

> 

> Regards,

> 

> Andrew J. Trim

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message----- From: nicholas williams

> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 10:38 PM

> To: Standard Cornish discussion list

> Subject: Re: [Spellyans] iw

> 

> <iw> is not found in Cornish. It is therefore not justifiable at all.

> One should write pyw 'who' and dyw 'two' (feminine); end of story.

> <iw> is George's ideal based on Lhuyd, who actually wrote iu with a dot under the u.

> <iw> has no place in any traditionally based orthography for Cornish.

> 

> Nicholas

> 

> On 2010 Du 19, at 21:29, Michael Everson wrote:

> 

>> The distinction between <iw> (which is unattested in Cornish and is justifiable only by Breton <iv>) and <yw> is a fiction.

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Spellyans mailing list

> Spellyans at kernowek.net

> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Spellyans mailing list

> Spellyans at kernowek.net

> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

 

 

_______________________________________________

Spellyans mailing list

Spellyans at kernowek.net

http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kernowek.net/pipermail/spellyans_kernowek.net/attachments/20101120/e92751c0/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Spellyans mailing list